G.R. No. L-46495. June 24, 1983.
ANDREA C. DECOLONGON, ET AL., petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, and FELICIDAD CUENCA, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

Gregorio Cuenca was a homestead applicant for a parcel of land in Silay City, Negros Occidental. The Director of Lands ordered the issuance of a patent on October 10, 1951. However, the actual patent was issued by the President and registered only on October 12, 1971, resulting in Original Certificate of Title No. P-41 in Gregorio’s name. Gregorio died on January 3, 1971, and his wife Aurelia died on April 14, 1971. Subsequently, on January 24, 1972, Andrea Cuenca Decolongon executed a declaration of heirship claiming to be the sole heir, leading to the cancellation of the title and its transfer to her name.
The private respondents, Felicidad Cuenca and other siblings of Gregorio, contested this. They presented a notarial deed of relinquishment dated May 16, 1966, wherein Gregorio, for a consideration of P1,000, transferred all his rights to the homestead in favor of Felicidad. This deed contained a clause stating it was “subject to the approval of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources.” The respondents filed an action for reconveyance against Andrea. The trial court ruled in favor of Andrea, but the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, upholding the deed of relinquishment and ordering reconveyance.

ISSUE

The main issue is whether the deed of relinquishment (Exhibit D) executed by Gregorio Cuenca in 1966 is valid, considering the prohibitions on alienation under Section 118 of Commonwealth Act No. 141 , as amended, and the lack of approval from the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, holding the deed of relinquishment valid. The Court applied the established doctrine that for purposes of computing the five-year prohibition against alienation under the Public Land Act, the patent is deemed issued upon the promulgation of the order for its issuance by the Director of Lands, not upon the actual issuance of the formal patent document. Here, the order was dated October 10, 1951. The deed was executed on May 16, 1966, which was clearly more than five years after that order. Thus, the alienation did not violate the five-year prohibitory period.
Regarding the requirement for approval by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources for alienations made after five years but before twenty-five years from the issuance of title, the Court ruled such approval is merely directory, not mandatory. Citing Raffiñan v. Abel, the absence of prior approval does not invalidate the conveyance. The clause in the deed making it subject to such approval did not render it void; it merely meant the transfer of the registered title was contingent on that approval, but the vested rights under the deed itself remained valid. Consequently, the deed effectively transferred Gregorio’s equitable and vested ownership rights to Felicidad Cuenca, warranting the order for reconveyance.